The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[The Parkus Empire]

In my mind? Marriage vows made before God are binding to the highest degree.

So what should be done in the case of abuse? Lets say that one spouse is physically abusing the other.

I think that's grounds for divorce. If parents are seriously physically abusive, the kid should have different parents. The same goes for spouses.

[The Parkus Empire]

Does this mean their marriage is dissolved? Or can neither of them remarry?

Marriage is indissoluble, neither can remarry. This is why, along with the spiritual and symbolic significance of the sacrament, we take this matter so seriously, marriage isn’t an issue to take lightly, we (and by “we” I mean then Church) make sure that those that participate know full well what they’re getting into.

Christ said adultery is grounds for divorce, so to say marriage is indissoluble is not quite right. Although it requires very serious, sound reason.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Ok I finally sat down and did some digging around through gritted teeth and this is what I found.

First stop, lawyer's blog:
(Must-read) https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/the-annulment-argument-a-quick-quide-to-the-two-sides

So it seems like for marriage between two Catholics, the oft-abused rule to obtain an annulment is canon 1095/2 which states,

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who su[ff]er from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

But for marriages contracted between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, a civil divorce will likely result in absolutely no ecclesial censure whatsoever for the Catholic person who knew enough to exploit an archaic law known as canon form:
https://www.arlingtondiocese.org/canonical-affairs-and-tribunal/lack/absence-of-form

which basically means that any marriage between a RC and a non-RC celebrated outside the RC church and not priorly exempted or subsequently recognised by the RC church is null and void. Just file the papers and you're done! (It's even free).

In a meeting with the pastor or other parish priest or deacon, the person seeking the declaration of nullity (the Petitioner) will complete the application for the Lack/Absence of Canonical Form. The following documents are sent with the application: a recently issued (within the last six months) Baptismal Certificate for the Catholic party, a copy of the Marriage License/Certificate, and the Final Decree of Divorce.

As of July 1, 2017, there is no longer a fee associated with the Lack of Form process.

Finally, a civilly-drafted pre-nuptial agreement will take care of temporal loose ends, like the family house, SUV, the dog, etc. Very evil stuff.

Edit: If, however, a RC person married a pagan and now regrets the decision because of your stubbornly unrepentent spouse in conflict with a rekindled faith to return to Our Lord then the same will apply, file the papers and you're done too! Think of the children.

[Mujahidah]

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who su[ff]er from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

Wouldn't spousal abuse show a "grave defect of discretion of judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties?"

[Blanco-Campeon]

Wouldn't spousal abuse show a "grave defect of discretion of judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties?"

Sounds like someone who believed abuse is fine in the context of matrimony at the time the marriage was contracted would meet that description. That marriage wouldn't be valid. Now if someone knew how to rightly perform the duties of matrimony (don't abuse your spouse being one of them) at the time the marriage was contracted, but then later started abusing their spouse (maybe out of anger issues or some other issue that should be resolved), that canon wouldn't apply. The marriage is still valid.

This of course is concurrent with the prudence that should be exercised in any relationship. It may be prudent for spouses to separate in order to resolve issues, but they are still married in the eyes of the Church.

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

Wouldn't spousal abuse show a "grave defect of discretion of judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties?"

Without delving deeply into canon laws (very wordy) and based on just a surface analysis I'd venture to guess this clause to have originated out of cases of male impotency or female unchastity.

Upon meditation of these findings, my concerns (fwiw) are:

1. In the modern context, this age of information, logic concludes that the one who moves for annulment will necessarily have to lie about intent, and lying to God is death (Act 5:5) thus effectively sacrificing himself/herself for the other.
2. Canonical form must remain or pandora's box will open should the Church admit the divine presence of God in other places of worship [edit2:] or the presence of the Holy Spirit in [edit1:] or the authority of the persons of non-Catholic ministers. (Of course I would advocate for inclusion of Orthodox churches but really having mixed feelings about Anglican ones.)

Common communion should take care of concern #2 and best option is avoid #1 altogether!

[Edit1] extended implications to include ministers
[Edit2] upon further meditation on Act 5:3-4 it becomes evident that what's really at stake in this situation is not only the authority to celebrate matrimony but also whether the celebrant priest is filled with the Holy Spirit, as our God is God of the living and not the dead (Mt 22:32, Mk 12:27, Lk 20:38)... so both concerns merge into one in the end.[/b]
[Edit3] formatting
[Edit4] This has now evolved to touch upon the deeply theological question of the real presence in the form of the species laying inside the tabernacle. And I should probably stop editing in additional thoughts as I'm now way out of my league! _{and the appendix is longer than the text}
[Edit5] formatting

[The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom]

It seems I cannot extricate myself as doing so may leave confusion already sown to fester and work to the advantage of the enemy, so I have come to this exposition in hope that it will safeguard the truth and thereby God may spare me from His divine wrath.

As God is omnipresent, nothing done in secret is hidden from His sight, and no oaths go unheard. The Eucharist holds the redemptive power of the flesh of Christ, our spiritual food, and the presence of the Holy Spirit is in His temple which is our bodies. Therefore, Act 5:5 is about the authority of the Apostle whose bishopric office was confirmed by God.

It is transgression to bear false witness because it is transgression to lie to God whose Spirit is poured out unto the sons of man. So witness before man is witness before God, hence why weddings must be officiated to be recognised by Church and community since time immemorial.

Official weddings are thus valid in the secular society but for them to take on a sacramental nature they must be officiated in the presence of God by way of witnesses and under the authority of a duly-ordained priest with valid Holy Orders.

Acts 5:1-5
​1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[KJV]

[Socialist Czechia]

Death and destruction as Boko Haram launches fresh attacks in Cameroon

Parts of Kaduna state lies in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region, where thousands of Christians have lost their lives in recent years in non-Boko Haram related violence. This has been marked by a growing number of attacks on Christian farmers by mainly Muslim Hausa-Fulani herdsmen. Last year researchers said that in 2016 violence in the Middle Belt had accounted for more deaths than those caused by Boko Haram.

Shouldn't you seriously consider going into crusading stuff in such areas?

Very at least, organize christian militias, like in the Lebanon. Don't tell me there are not Christians in United States who would even support smuggling weapons and 'humanitarian volunteers'.
Less missionaries and Bibles, more grenades and rifles, I say.

[The Archregimancy]

Socialist Czechia, you accidentally double-posted.

I've taken the liberty of deleting one of the identical posts; my apologies if this was presumptuous.

[Lord Dominator]

Today I learned that my grandparent's church has an actual usable bell, which is cool.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Oh yeah, did I tell you guys about my meds working?

Because, they are.

[Lower Nubia]

Today I learned that my grandparent's church has an actual usable bell, which is cool.

Do they have a church position, like a ‘bell boi’? .

Oh yeah, did I tell you guys about my meds working?

Because, they are.

Excellent news, glad you had it identified and have some effective treatment.

[Mujahidah]

Death and destruction as Boko Haram launches fresh attacks in Cameroon

Parts of Kaduna state lies in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region, where thousands of Christians have lost their lives in recent years in non-Boko Haram related violence. This has been marked by a growing number of attacks on Christian farmers by mainly Muslim Hausa-Fulani herdsmen. Last year researchers said that in 2016 violence in the Middle Belt had accounted for more deaths than those caused by Boko Haram.

Shouldn't you seriously consider going into crusading stuff in such areas?

Very at least, organize christian militias, like in the Lebanon. Don't tell me there are not Christians in United States who would even support smuggling weapons and 'humanitarian volunteers'.
Less missionaries and Bibles, more grenades and rifles, I say.

What is with you and friggin crusades? Its not a religious war. Muslims hate terrorists just as much, if not more, than you do. Stop trying to make this about religion.

[Stonok]

Muslims hate terrorists just as much, if not more, than you do.

Well...65% of Muslims do. According to Pew data, at least 15% of Muslims say Islamic Terrorism is at the very least sometimes justified. Considering there are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, that means there are 255,000,000 Muslims who are not-so-opposed to Terrorists. That is a lot.

[Mujahidah]

Muslims hate terrorists just as much, if not more, than you do.

Well...65% of Muslims do. According to Pew data, at least 15% of Muslims say Islamic Terrorism is at the very least sometimes justified.

I'd like to read the question that was asked to arrive at this data. Can you link it to me?

[Stonok]

Well...65% of Muslims do. According to Pew data, at least 15% of Muslims say Islamic Terrorism is at the very least sometimes justified.

I'd like to read the question that was asked to arrive at this data. Can you link it to me?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... -overview/

[Mujahidah]

I'd like to read the question that was asked to arrive at this data. Can you link it to me?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... -overview/

I may have missed something, but I didn't find a section about terrorism/militants.

[The Parkus Empire]

Death and destruction as Boko Haram launches fresh attacks in Cameroon

Parts of Kaduna state lies in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region, where thousands of Christians have lost their lives in recent years in non-Boko Haram related violence. This has been marked by a growing number of attacks on Christian farmers by mainly Muslim Hausa-Fulani herdsmen. Last year researchers said that in 2016 violence in the Middle Belt had accounted for more deaths than those caused by Boko Haram.

Shouldn't you seriously consider going into crusading stuff in such areas?

Very at least, organize christian militias, like in the Lebanon. Don't tell me there are not Christians in United States who would even support smuggling weapons and 'humanitarian volunteers'.
Less missionaries and Bibles, more grenades and rifles, I say.

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

[Mujahidah]

Death and destruction as Boko Haram launches fresh attacks in Cameroon



Shouldn't you seriously consider going into crusading stuff in such areas?

Very at least, organize christian militias, like in the Lebanon. Don't tell me there are not Christians in United States who would even support smuggling weapons and 'humanitarian volunteers'.
Less missionaries and Bibles, more grenades and rifles, I say.

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

Predictably, considering one of the militias in the Christian faction were literally Phalangists.

Honestly the Lebanese Civil War isn't a good thing to model yourself off, in general

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Muslims hate terrorists just as much, if not more, than you do.

Well...65% of Muslims do. According to Pew data, at least 15% of Muslims say Islamic Terrorism is at the very least sometimes justified. Considering there are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, that means there are 255,000,000 Muslims who are not-so-opposed to Terrorists. That is a lot.

That's still a majority.

[Socialist Czechia]

Death and destruction as Boko Haram launches fresh attacks in Cameroon



Shouldn't you seriously consider going into crusading stuff in such areas?

Very at least, organize christian militias, like in the Lebanon. Don't tell me there are not Christians in United States who would even support smuggling weapons and 'humanitarian volunteers'.
Less missionaries and Bibles, more grenades and rifles, I say.

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

When someone burns your village, I say it's normal to unleash your righteous wrath upon thee.

It's not okay to kill, of course, but it's perfectly reasonable and justified to kill in self-defense. Even if it's pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening in the first place, if such thing is highly probable.

[Tarsonis]

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

When someone burns your village, I say it's normal to unleash your righteous wrath upon thee.

It's not okay to kill, of course, but it's perfectly reasonable and justified to kill in self-defense. Even if it's pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening in the first place, if such thing is highly probable.

Of course. When Christ said turn the other cheek, he was referring to “stock weld”

[The Parkus Empire]

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

When someone burns your village, I say it's normal to unleash your righteous wrath upon thee.

It's not okay to kill, of course, but it's perfectly reasonable and justified to kill in self-defense. Even if it's pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening in the first place, if such thing is highly probable.

Christians are not called to be reasonable and just, but to be forgiving and merciful. The kingdom of God doesn't play by the world's rules

[The Archregimancy]

When someone burns your village, I say it's normal to unleash your righteous wrath upon thee.

It's not okay to kill, of course, but it's perfectly reasonable and justified to kill in self-defense. Even if it's pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening in the first place, if such thing is highly probable.

Of course. When Christ said turn the other cheek, he was referring to “stock weld”

[FelrikTheDeleted]

"Like in Lebanon'"? You know they actually ended up killing each other?

When someone burns your village, I say it's normal to unleash your righteous wrath upon thee.

It's not okay to kill, of course, but it's perfectly reasonable and justified to kill in self-defense. Even if it's pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening in the first place, if such thing is highly probable.

Self-defence is all well and good, but pre-emptive? Yeah nah.